These are the Generations: Identity, Covenant and the Toledot
Formula is the doctoral thesis of Matthew A. Thomas. Thomas examines the
organizational structure of the toledot formula in the book of Genesis
and in Num 13. Building on the work of previous scholars, he argues that the
narrowing function of the toledot formula defines the macrostructure of Genesis
and the Pentateuch as a whole. He identifies five independent toledot
headings in Genesis (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 11:10; 37:2), marked by the absence of a waw,
which effectively narrow the focus from creation to Israel in particular. A
further narrowing is seen in the toledot formula in Num 3:1, which focuses
on the cultic and civil leadership represented by Aaron and Moses. Thomas
explores three key mechanisms in chapters 24 (variations in the toledot
formula, the genealogies, and divine-human covenants) to ascertain their role
in shaping the narrowing effect of the formula in Genesis and the Pentateuch.

In the Introduction, Thomas surveys various methodological
approaches to Genesis, discussing both diachronic and synchronic studies. He
adopts a form-critical approach while incorporating insights from rhetorical,
aesthetic, and linguistic analysis into his research. With emphasis on the
final form of the text, he seeks to examine the surface structure of Genesis
and the Pentateuch with the goal of uncovering the organizational framework and
trajectory of the narrative.

In chapter one, Defining the Toledot Formula:
Syntax, Semantics, and Function, Thomas examines briefly the syntax and
semantics of the toledot formula. He observes that scholarship in the
past century has focused on the structure and compositional history of the
formula within the priestly material, citing the scholarly works of Budd,
von Rad, Eissfeldt, Cross, Tengström and Renaud. Thomas distinguishes himself
from these scholars in his focus on the final form of the text. By drawing upon
recent linguistic studies, he argues persuasively that the toledot
formula is a heading and that its function is to narrow the focus from a
universal context to Israel in particular. The formula provides cohesion and
continuity in the narrative, while alerting the reader to new material that is
taken up in the ensuing section.

In chapter two, Variations in the Syntax of the Toledot
Formula, Thomas surveys the views of Childs (1979), Tengström (1981), Renaud
(1990) and Koch (1999), noting the various ways they define the toledot formula
according to two basic categories, narrative (erzählerische or Epochen
and narratif) and genealogy (aufzählende or Generationen and
énumératif). Scharbert's seminal work on the formula is also examined,
particularly his definition of the toledot as either Ausscheidungstoledot
(exclusion-toledot) or Verheißungstoledot (promise-toledot).
Croatto and Koch are discussed in detail since both analyze the formula according
to the final form. J. S. Croatto argues for a ten-fold structure of Genesis,
while affirming the two basic categories of narrative (Gen 2:4; 6:9; 11:27;
25:19; 37:2) and genealogy (5:1; 10:1; 11:10; 25:12; 36:1[9]). K. Koch holds to
a five-part division of Genesis (2:46:8; 6:911:26; 11:2725:18; 25:1937:1;
37:250:26), defining each section as either Epochen-Toledot or Generationen-Toledot.

Thomas draws further upon the work of Francis I. Anderson
and Peter Weimar when exploring syntactical variations in the formula. Both
Anderson and Weimar conclude that the presence/absence of the waw is a key
aspect of syntactical variation. After much discussion of scholarship in
chapters 23, this is where the work of Thomas finds particular focus. He observes
that the conjunction waw, which is commonly employed with the formula
(Gen 10:1; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1, 9; Num 3:1; Ruth 4:18), is absent on five
occasions (Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 11:10; 37:2). Thomas draws the interesting conclusion
that these five toledot function as five major headings in Genesis,
providing the contours for the macrostructure; the remaining coordinate headings
are deemed functionally subordinate. This observation sets his work apart from
current scholarship, yet by affirming the narrowing focus of the toledot
he is able to incorporate the results of previous scholarship into his work.
Thomas's analysis of the syntax extends further to Num 3:13: he postulates
that the presence of a double introduction (which he compares to Gen 25:13 and
36:10) may indicate that the sons of Aaron are potentially being set aside,
giving further authority to Moses.

In chapter three, Genealogies-Role in Shaping the
Narrative, Thomas examines the relationship of genealogies to the toledot
structure. He observes, as other scholars have done, that linear genealogies
move the narrative forward at an accelerated pace, from one key figure to the
next, whereas segmented genealogies focus attention on familial relationships within
each generation, usually of secondary lines, and the pace is slowed down. Thomas's
discussion of genealogies in Genesis is consistent with current scholarship on
the topic. He goes beyond Genesis, however, considering how the list of leaders
and the census in Num 1 function in relation to the toledot heading in
Num 3:1. He proposes that the list of leaders in Num 1:516, which records one name
per tribe, is functionally equivalent to the linear genealogy in Gen 11:1026. Reference
to Aaron's four sons in Num 3:14 is seen to be functionally parallel to Terah's
three sons in Gen 11:2632, and the migration of each group is compared among
other possible parallels. The census list in Num 1:2047 is thought to be
analogous to the segmented genealogies in Genesis. Thomas then reasons that the
census list preserves the presence of Israel in the story, while at the same
time the people of Israel are being set aside to focus attention on their
leaders through the linear list in Num 1:516 and the toledot in Num
3:1. While it is worthwhile to consider the lists in Num 1 in relation to the toledot
formula in 3:1, the cited parallels are not as evident as Thomas suggests. Thomas
returns to Genesis and proposes, somewhat tentatively, that Gen 1:12:3 similarly
functions as a preservation list, which is given prior to the narrowing of the toledot
in Gen 2:4.

In chapter four, Covenants Change the Basis for the
Narrowing of Focus, Thomas explores how the divine covenants with Noah,
Abraham and Israel affect the narrowing in the toledot structure. He suggests
that five major toledot headings form a chiastic structure: heaven and earth
(A); Adam (B); Noah (C); Shem (B'); and Jacob/Israel (A'). Evidence for the
chiastic structure is assembled, although support seems to be lacking at times.
Thomas argues that Noah is at the center of the chiasm, and thus he raises the
question concerning the role of the Noahic covenant in shaping the ensuing toledot
formula. He suggests that after the flood the narrowing no longer takes place
through the death of human beings, but through divine promises which are made
to Abraham and to Israel (though Moses). Thomas reasons that Ishmael and Esau are
included in the toledot structure because they participate in God's
promise and are thus preserved in the segmented genealogy. The Sinai covenant
is another decisive moment affecting the narrowing of focus. While the final toledot
in Genesis (pre-Sinai) focuses on the 12 sons of Jacob and the narrowing comes
to an end (Gen 37:250:26), after the Sinai covenant Israel is preserved as a
people who participate in the ongoing narrative, alongside the leadership of
Aaron and Moses (Num 13).

In the concluding chapter, Thomas summarizes his findings
and suggests possible implications of his work along with topics for further
research.

Thomas's detailed analysis of scholarship on the toledot
formula is a helpful resource to have in one volume. His interaction with
scholarship throughout his work, while covering familiar territory at times, reminds
the reader of the variety of opinions espoused by scholars, and thus it
provides the impetus and rationale for Thomas's own research on the topic. His thesis
that the syntactical variations of the formula indicate that five major
headings form the macrostructure of Genesis is intriguing and worthy of further
consideration. He contributes to scholarship through his exploration of the
narrowing function of the toledot formula, which he extends beyond
Genesis to consider the role of the toledot in the shaping the
Pentateuch as a whole.

Thomas's view that the toledot formula in Num 3:1
narrows the focus to the cultic and civil leadership in Israel is an
interesting suggestion. Yet his view that the list of leaders and the census
list in Num 1 are comparable to the linear and segmented genealogies in Genesis
is less convincing at times, particularly since the genealogies in Genesis have
a clearly defined genre and context which may not be as analogous to the lists
in Num 1 as Thomas suggests. Furthermore, while it is well-established that the
toledot formula provides an important literary framework for the book of
Genesis, one may well enquire whether the toledot formula has the same
function in Numbers (notably occurring without the waw in Num 3:1), and
whether it is significant enough to define the macrostructure of the
Pentateuch.

Thomas is to be commended for examining the toledot
formula in the Pentateuch as a whole. Yet given that that the formula is
employed in Ruth 4:18, where it introduces a ten-depth linear genealogy
comparable to the linear genealogies in Genesis (5:132; 11:1026), the
question arises whether Ruth 4:18 ought to be examined in relation to the
narrowing focus of the toledot formula. Thomas has examined the
trajectory as far as the leadership of Aaron and Moses, but it might be of
interest to consider Ruth 4:18 with its focus on the line of Judah and Davidic
kingship. Perhaps this is a topic for further discussion, as Thomas himself
suggests.

There is much to be commended in Thomas's book, and anyone
interested in the macrostructure of Genesis and the Pentateuch will find it a
worthwhile read.